Development and evaluation of a scalable alternative to chart review for phenotype case adjudication using standardized structured data from electronic health records
Ostropolets, A.; Hripcsak, G.; Husain, S. A.; Richter, L. R.; Spotnitz, M.; Elhussein, A.; Ryan, P. B.
Show abstract
ObjectiveChart review as the current gold standard for phenotype evaluation cannot support observational research at scale. It is expensive, time-consuming, and variable. We aimed to evaluate the ability of structured data to support efficient patient status ascertainment and develop a standardized and scalable alternative to chart review. MethodsWe developed Knowledge-Enhanced Electronic Patient Profile Review system (KEEPER) that extracts a patients structured data elements relevant to a given phenotype and presents them in a standardized fashion that follows clinical reasoning principles. We evaluated its performance compared to manual chart review for four conditions (diabetes type I, acute appendicitis, end stage renal disease and chronic obstructive lung disease) using randomized two-period, two-sequence crossover design. Inter-method agreement, inter-rater agreement, accuracy, and review duration were measured. ResultsAscertaining patient status with KEEPER was twice as fast compared to manual chart review. 88.1% of the patients were classified concordantly using full chart and KEEPER, but agreement varied depending on the condition. Pairs of clinicians agreed in classification of patient status in 91.2% of the cases when using KEEPER compared to 76.3% when using full chart. Patient classification aligned with the gold standard in 88.1% and 86.9% of the cases respectively. ConclusionThis proof-of-concept study demonstrated that structured data can be used for efficient patient ascertainment if are limited to only relevant subset and organized according to the clinical reasoning principles. A system that implements these principles can achieve similar accuracy and higher inter-rater reliability compared to chart review at a fraction of time.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Transforming Estonian health data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model: lessons learned 95%
- Trajectories: a framework for detecting temporal clinical event sequences from health data standardized to the OMOP Common Data Model 95%
- Development of a COVID-19 Application Ontology for the ACT Network 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Validation of Phenotype Classifiers across Multiple Sites in the Observational Health Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Network 96%
- Increasing Trust in Real-World Evidence Through Evaluation of Observational Data Quality 95%
- Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating the impact on clinical task efficiency of a natural language processing algorithm for searching medical documents: Prospective crossover study 95%
- Developing and Evaluating Mappings of ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM Codes to PheCodes 95%
- Transformative potential of Large Language Models in data mining on Electronic Health Records. 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- ConceptWAS: a high-throughput method for early identification of COVID-19 presenting symptoms 95%
- Development of a Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) Symptom Lexicon Using Electronic Health Record Clinical Notes 94%
- EHR-QC: A streamlined pipeline for automated electronic health records standardisation and preprocessing to predict clinical outcomes 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 94%
- Evaluating Semantic Similarity Methods for Comparison of Text-derived Phenotype Profiles 93%
- Temporal Relationship of Computed and Structured Diagnoses in Electronic Health Record Data 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.